New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction of tenancy tribunal

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2022

THE TRUSTEES OF THE LINK TRUST NO 1 v BODY CORPORATE 68792 [2022] NZHC 151

Citation

[2022] NZHC 151
Court

High Court

The Tenancy Tribunal properly dismissed the application because subsequent events (applicant's bankruptcy, Body Corporate insolvency and administration/liquidation and prior strike out of related High Court proceedings for inordinate delay) rendered a declaration as to 2014 chairmanship of no practical utility and its grant would amount to an abuse of process; the District Court did not err in law in upholding that conclusion and the High Court dismisses the appeal.
19 Dec 2019

WANT v PARBHU AND PATEL AS TRUSTEES OF THE IMPALA TRUST [2019] NZCA 674

Citation

[2019] NZCA 674
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the High Court was correct: the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies to tenancies even if occupation or intended occupation is or would be unlawful; s137(1)(a) does not automatically void such tenancies or exclude them from Tribunal jurisdiction; the Act's text, purpose and scheme, and the limited remit of s137, require the Tribunal to have jurisdiction to address unlawful residential tenancies.
23 May 2019

McGREEVY v CRC LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1143

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1143
Court

High Court

The District Court erred in relying on the Anderson/Parbhu materials and the respondent's failure to seek Tribunal costs when reducing the award by 40%. A 2B scale assessment was appropriate given the preparation required; however CRC's responsible decision to abide the appeal justified a modest reduction. A 15% reduction from the 2B scale ($3,687.50) was appropriate, producing $3,134.38 for the District Court appeal; appeal costs were fixed at $3,902.50 with disbursements $580.00. The District Court order awarding $2,212.50 was set aside and replaced accordingly.
15 Aug 2018

PARBHU v WANT [2018] NZHC 2079

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2079
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Residential Tenancies Act applies to tenancies used or intended for residential purposes even if inconsistent with other regulatory requirements; the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and provide appropriate remedies for such tenancies under the Act; s137 is an anti-avoidance provision and does not automatically apply to all unlawful-tenancy situations absent an agreement purporting to evade the Act; therefore the Tribunal's s137-based restitution order was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration of remedies.
12 Apr 2017

YEE GOOD FORTUNE INVESTMENTS LTD v BODY CORPORATE 392619 [2017] NZHC 723

Citation

(2017)18 NZCPR 504
Court

High Court

High Court allowed the appeal in part: it held there was no evidential basis to sustain the Tribunal's factual finding that the delegation was passed as a special resolution and remitted that issue to the Tenancy Tribunal; it held s138 authorises a body corporate to engage in repairs and necessary preparatory work for building elements serving more than one unit and that s118 can permit a contingency fund to finance remediation, but that a contingency fund must be deliberately established in accordance with statutory/regulatory decision-making requirements (mere ledger coding is insufficient)…
19 Jun 2015

Scott v Housing New Zealand Corporation [2015] NZHC 1401

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1401
Court

High Court

HNZC was not required to determine the applicant's ongoing eligibility for social housing under the HR&TMA before issuing a valid s51(1)(d) 90 day termination notice under the RTA; actions under s58A and the HR&TMA appeal regime do not invalidate or modify HNZC's separate statutory power as landlord to terminate a tenancy by notice, and the Tenancy Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to convert HR&TMA review requirements into prerequisites to a s51 notice.
27 Jan 2015

BODY CORPORATE 366611 v B.E.M.A. PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LTD [2015] NZHC 31

Citation

[2015] NZHC 31
Court

High Court

Disputes about 'reasonable costs' incurred in collecting levies under s124 fall within the Tenancy Tribunal's jurisdiction under s171(1A), so the Court will not order indemnity solicitor-client costs under the Act in this forum; however the Court may still award costs for the proceedings before it and accordingly awarded 2B scale costs and disbursements for steps relating to the statutory demand and liquidation proceedings, while reserving leave to pursue further costs before the Tenancy Tribunal and making no costs order for the exchange of memoranda.
14 Dec 2012

MW LEVETT AND RNM INDEPENDENT TRUSTEE CO LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF GARVEY'S CREEK WORKERS PENSION FUND V VILLAGE ACCOMMODATION GROUP LIMITED HC WN

Citation

openlaw-a0d9f10b_7c09_49b3_a0ba_1d1ffe96b63c.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because there is a real argument that the Tenancy Tribunal may have jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and because multiple substantial factual disputes and arguable defences (including untenantability, rent adjustments, reinstatement disputes and post-termination arrangements) preclude a finding that the defendant has no defence; matter is transferred to the District Court and costs awarded to the defendant.
27 Nov 2012

BOUTIQUE BODY CORPORATE LIMITED V J STAR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED HC AK CIV 2012-404-004390

Citation

openlaw-00ebffcd_0d6b_4ce5_b093_0c72a0299660.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 171(4) ousts the Tenancy Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine an application under s 140(5) where the contract or the underlying rights have a value or practical financial consequences exceeding $50,000 because Parliament imposed monetary jurisdictional thresholds to limit the Tribunal and 'appropriate decision-maker' contemplates referral to District or High Court where consequences exceed those thresholds; jurisdiction is determined by the effect of the order, not merely its form.
31 Mar 2010

ZHONG V LEVI HC AK CIV-2009-404-3190

Citation

openlaw-a18a104b_a47d_4e74_8a32_3204aea5e5b3.pdf
Court

High Court

Determination of whether a residential tenancy existed and conferred possession is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and, in any event, there are material disputes of fact and credibility such that summary judgment is inappropriate; accordingly the plaintiff's application for summary judgment is declined.